2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[T5towbar]

First, everyone here is adamantly aware of Industry Standards, Parity Formulas, and Corporate Competitive Peer Pressure...
 
Here is Nelson’s argument... a Transition Agreement at UA that 70% of the Membership voted YES on... is GOING... I repeat going (as in the future) to influence Section Six Negotiations at AA/US.
 
Now let’s break this down, the Transition Agreement at UA has been ratified, no turning back the clock on that. However, it was a Transition Agreement, NOT Section Six, and it was conducted AFTER a merger with CO in the wake of BK! Again... at AA/US it’s NOT a Transition Agreement... it is straight Section Six, conducted at the peak of corporate profits, PRIOR to a much needed Transition Agreement with the newly merged carriers.
 
Now, since Nelsons argument depends on something happening in the future to complete his prophecy, we are all expected to believe his crystal ball is correct, and vote him into an Officer’s position, so he can correct ALL of this BEFORE it even happens, and then he can somehow travel back into the past and re-negotiate scope at UA?!
 
WOW... that Nelson must really be blessed with some superhuman powers... or own a DeLorean with a flux-capacitor!
 
Now... to carry the” monkey see monkey do” analogy a little further... UA WILL enter Section Six at some point in the future, and they may very well base their strategy on what AA/US has achieved in the current 6 talks here. Since that fact can’t be ignored, and the current team has held steadfast in 6, they may very well have the ability to influence UA when they actually do enter Section Six talks...
 
Of course... just like Nelson’s argument... this all depends on events that have NOT YET HAPPENED!

But the parallels are similar because the IAM filed for single carrier, in essence killing off talks to get improvements for the sUA members before going into joint talks. They were in talks and should have improved their contract first. We (sCO) already had our rushed contract that the IBT gave us before the merger. If sUA could have got their improvements first, then the joint contract could have been stronger and it would not have been based off the FTW that sCO had. IMHO, it was all about the money and dues.

You guys are trying to get improvements first before going into joint talks. This is repeating all over, except you have seen the mistake that we have made, and hopefully you can get improvements before going into joint talks with TWU and the AA members.

Get your improvements first before going into ANY joint talks. Otherwise you will be sealing your own doom. I hope that the IAM have learned from experience, and will fight hard not to make the same mistake.

 

[roabilly]

But the parallels are similar because the IAM filed for single carrier, in essence killing off talks to get improvements for the sUA members before going into joint talks. They were in talks and should have improved their contract first. We (sCO) already had our rushed contract that the IBT gave us before the merger. If sUA could have got their improvements first, then the joint contract could have been stronger and it would not have been based off the FTW that sCO had. IMHO, it was all about the money and dues.

You guys are trying to get improvements first before going into joint talks. This is repeating all over, except you have seen the mistake that we have made, and hopefully you can get improvements before going into joint talks with TWU and the AA members.

Get your improvements first before going into ANY joint talks. Otherwise you will be sealing your own doom. I hope that the IAM have learned from experience, and will fight hard not to make the same mistake.

That is exactly what everyone on the N/C is demanding! 6 Talks first... JCBA later....

 

[roabilly]

Be honest with the members.  And do two big things that our NC refuses to do that NEED to be done to build whatever leverage is left and then rapidly conclude these talks with a fair agreement to be presented to the membership.  The alternative is the insanity I now hear and the lies about the MOU.  The more folks I can make aware of the MOU, the more educated our members will be and the more they will realize our eboard has been blowing smoke up their collective arses. 
 
For the audience, kindly review the MOU. If someone has a link or can copy and paste it in this forum then much appreciated. Otherwise, i'll have to type if word for word.  

The scenario regarding the TWU/MOU that you are sounding alarms about, has NOT happened...
 
I think it would be more applicable, and relevant to case history to post the MX Airbus ruling as 700 has indicated... that is something that actually HAS happened, and was resolved in favor of the IAM!
 
700 is it possible to post this ruling?

 

[700UW]

The arbitration or the court issues?
 
And still waiting for your explanation Timmy.
 
If the Airbus Outsourcing which was a minor dispute was worth over $300 million and changed the CBA by US violating the contract was not a major dispute, how is the SCS which doesnt change the CBA a major dispute?

 

[737823]

The arbitration or the court issues?
 
And still waiting for your explanation Timmy.
 
If the Airbus Outsourcing which was a minor dispute was worth over $300 million and changed the CBA by US violating the contract was not a major dispute, how is the SCS which doesnt change the CBA a major dispute?

But yet they never brought the work back in house.

Josh

 

[Hope777]

Posting during work hours again Josh???  Again,tell me who your work for?

 

[700UW]

Because US filed Chapter 11 and abrogated the CBA in court.
 
US was working the airbus in PIT and outsourcing, so part of the work was done in-house, and the Transition Agreement of 2008 brought more work in-house, PIT HMV has been working the airbus aircraft since 2004.

 

[737823]

On a flight.

Josh

 

[roabilly]

The arbitration or the court issues?
 
And still waiting for your explanation Timmy.
 
If the Airbus Outsourcing which was a minor dispute was worth over $300 million and changed the CBA by US violating the contract was not a major dispute, how is the SCS which doesnt change the CBA a major dispute?

I think BOTH are relevant....

 

[700UW]

It use to be up on the district site, I will have to do some digging since it was so long ago.

 

[700UW]

Here is an article on the appeal:



 

US Airways wins battle over Airbus maintenance

Source:
00:00 10 Feb 2004



US Airways has won a battle with its mechanics union over subcontracting Airbus heavy maintenance to an outside company.
The US Court of Appeals lifted the October 2003 injunction obtained by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), preventing the airline from contracting out heavy maintenance of 10 Airbus A319s to ST Mobile Aerospace Engineering, a subsidiary of Singapore Technologies Aerospace (ST Aero). ST Mobile had finished work on one A319, but the ruling required the company to stop overhauling the other nine.
 
US Airways has said it has insufficient capacity to carry out heavy maintenance, but the IAM had argued that the airline should build an in-house facility.
 
The court ruled that the IAM should resolve its dispute with management through arbitration after declaring the disagreement between US Airways and the IAM to be a "minor dispute".
 
US Airways says: "The court's decision validates the company's consistent legal opinion that this issue is a minor contract dispute under the Railway Labor Act that must be resolved through arbitration between US Airways and the International Association of Machinists." It aims to award a contract to ST Mobile, but has not decided whether it will use a third party to complete heavy maintenance on the rest of its Airbus fleet.


 
 

 

[roabilly]

It use to be up on the district site, I will have to do some digging since it was so long ago.

Thanks for looking... I think since we are dealing with "scenarios" we need to actually see recorded case history, and fully understand how the process would likely transpire if the TWU didn't meet the SCS... 

 

[737823]

It use to be up on the district site, I will have to do some digging since it was so long ago.

Once again you are posting things that do not pertain to the topic, this is fleet service DL 141 (not your district-http://www.airlineforums.com/topic/56294-novdec-2013-fleet-service-discussion/?p=1049032) M&R is DL 142.

Josh

 

[700UW]

Here is the link to the the decision on getting the TRO from Judge Robert Cindrich of Pittsburgh.
 
http://www.pawd.uscourts.gov/Documents/Ops%20aherf/cindrich/03cv1496-aerospace%20workers%20district%20lodge%20141-m%20v%20US%20Airways-mord%2021oct03.pdf

 

[700UW]

Once again you are posting things that do not pertain to the topic, this is fleet service DL 141 (not your district-http://www.airlineforums.com/topic/56294-novdec-2013-fleet-service-discussion/?p=1049032) M&R is DL 142.

Josh

Are you the mod now?
 
And it is totally relevant as it explains the difference between a major and minor dispute, which Tim and others are asking about and needing to know in regard to the Single Carrier Status filing.
 

Thanks for looking... I think since we are dealing with "scenarios" we need to actually see recorded case history, and fully understand how the process would likely transpire if the TWU didn't meet the SCS...